Subject:
|
Re: It's All Over...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:36:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Johann writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rick Kujawa writes:
> > Whoever wins Florida however, wins
> > the Electoral vote and is thus the President no matter what the popular vote.
>
> True. I don't dispute this. However a 1/30th of 1% lead is tenuous at best.
>
> > Those are the rules, period. This should force some much needed changes in our
> > election process for the future.
>
> Perhaps, but that would take an amendment to the Constitution as a best-case
> scenario. Worst case being a re-write of the COnstitution which I don't believe
> is possible (by law). Amendments are very few and far between in our history.
> Besides that, the electoral college is VITAL to U.S. politics. Without it, any
> state smaller than Ohio becomes irrelevant in the sceme of all things voting.
> This effectively means that California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Ohio would
> ALWAYS determine the winner of an election. Nice way to be represented, eh?
> (Yes, I've been watching too much Dan Rather and Peter Jennings this morning).
Brocaw Brocaw. He's off by now.
Hey der (practicing my Canadian), Not sure the smaller states would become
irrelevant, they would still get added to the total popular vote. Or the
Electoral college could change to an apportioned system like a couple states
have. True it would take an ammendment to the Constitution but it is prolly
overdue. The Electoral college is an old obsolete vestige of the original
government when only landowners and taxpayers could vote (No women, blacks,
renters, jobless, etc) Our system is much more inclusive now.
>
> > It will certainly be some historically
> > interesting days ahead. Maybe the country will be changed for the better.
>
> If I were an optimist, I'd agree. Too bad I feel we lose either way. A moron or
> a robot....what a choice. (Yes, I did vote because I felt I needed too.)
I agree on that but you gotta marvel at how unbelievably right down the middle
the country voted. If it was all one sided it would be much worse. Viva la
differance! I mean our election system might get better, not the current
options for leaders.
>
> >
> > If your gunna run away because you don't like the way it is here... Well,
> > C'ya...Aye?
>
> EYE, I, Captain!
Or should it be Hoser? :) (just saying hope you CAN find something better, or
will you stay and try and make it better?)
Rick
>
>
> -Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) Yes, but as a candidate running for office, would you spend your war chest in Los Angeles or Des Moines? Chicago or Olympia? My point is that you'd spend your money where there is a greater concentration of people so as to reach a larger (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: It's All Over...
|
| (...) True. I don't dispute this. However a 1/30th of 1% lead is tenuous at best. (...) Perhaps, but that would take an amendment to the Constitution as a best-case scenario. Worst case being a re-write of the COnstitution which I don't believe is (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
